Sub menu

Mood turns against Obama

The Financial Times was strongly in favour of Obama and dismissive of the Benghazi embassy controversy. Now their skyline comment placement – in bright colours above the headline – notes a change of mood against him “from hope to cynicism”.

The piece itself is defensive from the outset but, or should I say “and”, makes comparisons with Nixon.

Share this:

Related

Simon Gibbs

Simon is a London based IT contractor and the proprietor of Libertarian Home. Working with logic and cause-and-effect each day he was naturally attracted to nerdy libertarianism and later to the benevolent logic of Objectivism. Find him on Google+View all posts by Simon Gibbs →

Post navigation

6 comments for “Mood turns against Obama”

Julie near Chicago

Jul 14, 2014 at 10:19 pm

Unfortunately, you have to sign up to read the FT article, and I’m not moved to do so.

But people who think that Nixon and Obama (and still less, G.W. Bush and Obama) are “just like” each other (or that X is “Y-lite”) miss one very simple, very obvious, very game-changing fact, and that is that neither of the earlier two presidents had any wish to take down the United States and the West generally.

I am positive that Pres. Bush honestly believed that what he was doing was in the best interests of the country, given what he thought was “the will of the people” and was politically possible.

Pres. Nixon may have been (probably was) on a power trip, but he too, I am sure, was not out to break the back of his country.

[Remember: When the Democratic Machine and Grandpa Joe managed to buy a few extra votes for young Jackie, a large segment of the voters knew that was a fraudulent election and some urged Richard Nixon to contest it. He said, “No, because that would tear the country apart. Now we can get into theories that make this a less pro-American-ideals-of-democracy, but the naked fact is what we can be sure of.

[Similarly, Nixon actually resigned as a result of Watergate.

[– Watergate, big deal. Hardly a type of thing unheard-of, but the press managed to use it to tar and feather him. (There, the evil was done by young Red Diaper Baby Carl Bernstein and his pal Woodward — just trying to make a name for himself. Bringing down, during wartime, the Administration that had sworn not to abandon, not to renege on, the promise of support to South Viet Nam was quite likely well-calculated and in line with the Lefty “anti-war,” i.e. anti-American agenda.) To equate Watergate and Benghazi is rank moral equivalence of the worst sort.

[No, the EPA was a dreadful, dreadful mistake, but not intended to be anti-American, but a natural expression of Progressive ideals, which it is fair to assume motivated Nixon. Similarly with wage-and-price controls, shocking as they were at the time. THAT was when I thought things couldn’t get any worse! Boy was I wrong….

[No. The worst thing Nixon did was to go to China, to give to Mao’s regime an appearance of legitimacy and also strength in the eyes of the international community. That was unforgivable. We can argue all day about whether the long-term results were good or ill for the Chinese people TODAY, but it was a deal with the devil for sure.

[But Nixon did not do this out of hatred for the U.S. nor the West, nor for the love of Communism or anti-American ideals. He did it in order to “drive a wedge” between China and the U.S.S.R., thus helping to contain Soviet Communism. Now part of his motivation may or may not have been the wish to leave a Great Legacy, but it wasn’t to destroy the U.S.]

But Obama said his mission was to “fundamentally transform” America. And so he is doing. His “mission” really is to bring down America, and to discredit the West generally.

And he’s a pathological liar, isn’t that clear? “Never tell the truth when a lie will do.”

The Constitution, he said during the 2008 campaign, “is a flawed document.” And when he took the Presidential oath to defend it, he lied through his teeth. As some of us knew at the time. Nixon and Bush may or may not have had private reservations when they took the Oath, but there’s no reason to assume they had a positive intent to shred it.

As for outcomes: Pres. Bush left a situation that was going well in Iraq. Obama destroyed that with the pull-out.

The domestic stuff: I do not defend Pres. Bush on much of that, although I will note that he did attempt at least to move Social Security toward some sort of privatization. Why he abandoned that I don’t know. Very disappointing. But Obamacare is much, much worse than anything Pres. Bush did or didn’t do.

Nixon: My hindsight and present-sight are not good enough to say Yay or Nay to the rapprochement with China, but until somebody absolutely proves me wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt, I do not change my opinion of the act itself. Still, Nixon was a Cold Warrior, and if he thought he was acting responsibly as such, he ought to get at least recognition of the fact.

The domestic stuff: EPA is still with us, and bad, very bad. But Obamacare is worse.

Nixon really was anti-Communist (or at the very least, anti-U.S.S.R.-Communist, which was the Baddest Boy on the block in his day), and Bush really did take action to punish the perps of 9/11 and the states who gave them support in one way or another, and to discourage any further attempts; and he was not entirely unsuccessful. One unarguable example being Khadaffi’s decision to play nice vis-á-vis nukes.

And surely everyone knows that Obama has gone to infinite pains to worsen the U.S.’s image in the eyes of the world. I cannot say the effort has proven fruitless.

Paul Marks

Jul 15, 2014 at 8:10 pm

Julie – as you know, Richard Nixon had a picture of “Teddy” Roosevelt (his hero) on his the wall of his room as a boy. Not a good sign (to put it mildly) – but at least it was not a picture of Woodrow Wilson.

Actually, although I detest their policies, I have a certain regard for T. Roosevelt and Richard Nixon as people – as they are complicated and have unexpected twists and turns (rather like Gothic architecture – which I also find interesting) . Consistent straight-forward collectivists (such as Woodrow Wilson or Barack Obama) bore me – dealing with them is like chopping wood (perhaps because I find it difficult to think of them as rounded human beings).

Julie near Chicago

Jul 15, 2014 at 10:13 pm

I would very much like to read a straight-forward, non-dry biography of Nixon.

Dinesh D’Souza’s take on Obama’s foundation, so to speak, is interesting. He argues, or argued, that he got Marxism+anti-Colonialism, with America as the Colonial Power Incarnate, from his father (perhaps not so much directly, since there was almost no direct contact, but via his mother’s indoctrination–though I don’t recall if Mr. D’Souza says that himself. Of course, Paul, as you point out most of his life has been spent in Marxist circles. And I will add, “thuggist” circles if you count his time in the bowels of the Chicago Machine, which I certainly do).

Julie near Chicago

Jul 15, 2014 at 10:21 pm

In the interest of scholarship or something, I should note that I’ve just seen a discussion between Mr. D’Souza and Megyn Kelly (of Fox News) in which he ends up saying that he doesn’t think Obama hates America — Gad! Around 3:20 into the video, Miss Kelly says, “It almost seems as if you’re saying he’s anti-American –….” And the response is, “It’s not like Obama hates America. It’s not like he wants to take America down….” Dinesh, I think you’ve lost the plot. 🙁

Yes – why would Barack Obama need to have got Marxism from his father. What about his mother (S.A.), maternal grandfather (Pops) and childhood mentor Frank Marshall Davis? And all the later Marxists Comrade Barack was involved with – his whole life.

Paul Marks

Jul 15, 2014 at 8:48 am

The “FT” is a mixture of ideological leftism and cynical opportunism – and the cynical opportunism tends to win out in the end. They sense that Barack Obama is waning in popularity – so, like rats leaving a sinking ship, they moving to desert him (seeking new politicians to get banker bailouts, and other such, from).